Tuesday, 19 December 2017

This letter was sent to the Guardian in response to Larry Elliot's article. It is less of criticism of the reformers 33 points (which I did not think were helpful to their cause), but more a criticism of Larry Elliot's portrayal of economics.

I enjoyed Larry Elliot’s recent articles on measuring GDP and
inequality. However, I was deeply troubled by his most recent article in
support for a “Reformation” in economics. The list of 33 points stuck to the
door of LSE’s economics department would be met by bafflement to those working
within mainstream economics simply because we are already working on them. To
give one example, points 17-19 relate to inequality. Inequality is not only my
specialist research area, it is also the subject I teach to undergraduates at Durham
University.

Another example Mr Elliot gives of why economics needs a
reformation is that economists need to learn from other disciplines, such as psychology,
by citing the auto-enrollment of pension coverage as an example. However, the
auto-enrollment of pension schemes is an example of economists already learning
from psychology
(specifically, the work of Richard Thaler, a noble-prize winning economist).

There are good
arguments for rethinking the way economics is taught and practiced, including the
debate surrounding pluralist approaches. Unfortunately, Mr Elliot will help
neither side of the debate if he continually mischaracterises the present state
of economics.